The Great Paradox of Politics

[Dookus]

In any electoral democracy, there are two, often conflicting, requirements that a person must fulfill in order to lead. The first is being elected (or electable) and the second is governing. The qualifications and requirements for each job are drastically different.

To start with the second... to be a great governor (not in the titular sense), one should be honest, sure, brave, intelligent, pure and kind. Yet such qualities are in almost direct opposition to the qualities needed for the first requirement. To be elected (or electable) one must be cunning, pandering, artificial, even, at times, underhanded.

Too many people believe that having the qualities of a good governor equates to being a good candidate. They believe purity, honesty, integrity, decency and valor are sufficient to succeed in politics. That belief is admirable, yet misguided. It is misguided because it ignores the other half of the equation. The purest, most honest candidate has no power if he or she cannot get elected, and in fact, pure and honest candidates cannot get elected. That's not new to American politics.

Representative Barney Frank has said that only once in his life has he voted for a perfect candidate: himself... and only in his first election. "By my first reelection bid, I was no longer perfect", he stated. Mr. Frank was right. There is no perfection in politics. The things one must do to be elected are generally very different from the things one must do to govern well.

There are people, no doubt, who choose one side of the equation more heavily than the other. Both do so with admirable cause and both sides have enough examples to back up their positions. But even the most liberal, or the most conservative, person has adjusted their positions, or at least their rhetoric, to fulfill the conflicting duties of candicacy and governorship.

So what does this mean? In my opinion, it means we need to understand that right now we are immersed in one half of the equation - the electoral half. We need to get elected. Without doing that, everything else is moot. And I understand the difficulty people have with this - because the requirements for getting elected are in many ways anathema to the requirements for governing. But only the politically naive will fail to recognize the difference.

Yes, Kerry will appeal to people you don't much love. Yes, he'll take some positions you don't agree with. But he does so because he's a good politician who realizes that his immediate task is to win the office. Without the office, he can do nothing.

To those on the far left who are most dissatisfied, I can only say that if Kerry thought he could win by pandering to you, he would do so. If he could win by pandering to hedgehogs, he would do so. He's been around the block - he knows what he has to do to be elected. Have faith.

[Dookus]

1. lol

kick... the most extensive post I've made....

[democratreformed]

2. It was a good one, too, Dookus

I understand completely what you are saying. I just tried to resist the reality of it for quite a while (especially b/c of the primary campaign). I was a bitter and sore loser. I was distraught that the qualities of being a "good leader" were not enought to be "electable".

Eventually, I began to admit that what you have said is true. I worked on accepting the reality of it and being happy with it. I pondered what I might could do to change that reality at some later date. I even pondered if I wanted to reject that reality completely and simply refuse to vote.

The DNC did wonders for me. I was deliriously happy to see our good General Clark in the spotlight again. I was heartened by the fact that so much of what he said seemed to shape what so many others said at the convention. Then, I was really ecstatic to hear some of his ideas a words in the speech of our nominee.

Kerry's speech, I thought, was spectacular. I'm sure it wasn't that great to some people. But, to me, it spoke directly to me. It was beyond my expectations. It addressed so many issues and, almost all of them, I agreed with.

Today, I am very happy to support John Kerry for POTUS. I honestly believe that he will be a good leader. And, I will still do what I can to work on changing the system. Not that I am not happy with the outcome (I could be happier). But, I have been extremely unhappy with the PROCESS, if you know what I mean.

[Dookus]

3. I understand

but the process is necessary if we have any intention of remaining a democracy. Yes, it would be better if you or I were empowered to simply appoint our leaders, but I wouldn't want anybody ELSE to have that power. So we have this crappy system that is the worst in the world, except for all the others.

[democratreformed]

4. Yeah, I guess you're right about that - it being necessary.

I deleted this b/c it implied something I din't mean.

[Dookus]

5. umm...

Bill Clinton was elected in the very recent past. He was a little guy. Jimmy Carter was a little guy. Kerry didn't get the nomination because of his money - he was simply the best candidate.

[democratreformed]

6. Oh, I didn't at all mean to imply that.

Honestly, I didn't - even though, in hindsight, I see that it seems that way.

And, being from Arkansas here, I never in my life considered Bill Clinton a little guy. I remember him being my governor since I was old enough to know what a governor was. That's with the small exception of the years that Frank White was the governor - whom I seriously despised.

During Jimmy Carter's time, I was a little young, but I remember really liking him because he was a peanut farmer from Georgia. (I was 14 in 1980). I guess, even at that age, I was intrigued b/c I did view him as a little guy.

I guess I can agree that Kerry won b/c he is the best candidate. That's not really admitting that I believe that he is the best person for the job, right? ;-) I do thing Kerry will be good.

[Dookus]

9. well yeah, I guess if you grew up with him as Governor...

but he was definitely a "little guy". He didn't use his (non-existent) wealth to run for office.

[Larkspur]

7. It's not just leftwing liberals that despise Kerry, moderates, like me

do as well.

Kerry has no charisma and sold out his convictions years ago, which is why he has to pander.

[Dookus]

8. nonsense

Your opinion of something isn't necessarily reflective of reality. He's got plenty of charisma, and I find his convictions to be deeply felt and hard fought.